|
21 Apr 13 - 03:43 AM (#3506448) Subject: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: open mike I keep checking the news to see the condition of the bomb suspect. He was last listed in serious condition. His brother died and gruesome fotos of the elder brother have been posted. Everyone in Boston must be relieved that the suspects are no longer at large. Are there others involved? |
|
21 Apr 13 - 07:15 AM (#3506510) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: jacqui.c The news last night suggested that it was just these two. Hopefully the guy will survive and give some answers as to their motivation. There must be a lot of people, including the families of the dead, who want to know. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 07:44 AM (#3506520) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: SPB-Cooperator It is vital for the sake of justice that if the suspect is guilty, he aces the consequences of his actions in court, and if not guilty for this to be revealed. It is a pity that the dead suspect cannot be tried. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 07:52 AM (#3506525) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor Presumably the evidence is going to be strong enough on the cop killing. They will just match the bullets. The pressure cooker bombs they threw during the gun battles will almost certainly tie him to the other crime. Conviction is almost certain. The trial, if there is one, will be about extenuating circumstances. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 07:53 AM (#3506526) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Keith A of Hertford They were seen and filmed planting the devices. Is there much doubt to give them the benefit of? What would be the case for the defence? |
|
21 Apr 13 - 08:07 AM (#3506538) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: SPB-Cooperator WE both know the evidence is so irrefutable, that conviction is a certainty, but it it still has to happen on the verdict of their peers in a court of law. That at least goes somewhere towards closure. The older brother has unfortunately escaped the verdict of his peers. If he doesn't survive his injuries, then both will have escaped justice. They will just be dead suspects. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 08:13 AM (#3506546) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor The older brother received a foreseeable and just punishment for shooting at a policeman. That is plenty for me. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 11:46 AM (#3506618) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: open mike so ironic that these young men and their families were here (and in Canada) as refugees from terror....here for asylum. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 02:19 PM (#3506695) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Rapparee The news (Associated Press) says that there are throat wounds. I want to know, if it is possible at all, why. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 06:16 PM (#3506796) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad There is some indication that he may have shot himself in the neck in a suicide bid just prior to his apprehension. Gawker |
|
21 Apr 13 - 06:36 PM (#3506800) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow "Might have" is pretty meaningless. And if you're trying to kill yourself, shooting yourself in the neck doesn't make a lot of sense. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 06:41 PM (#3506803) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad If you read the fucking article you will see why it is might have. Thanks for you input anyway. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 06:41 PM (#3506804) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad Talk about meaningless. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 08:32 PM (#3506846) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jeri I think people nit pick because they don't really have much to say. Yes, it's pointless to anyone but them, but what-the-hell... I'm trying to imagine this screwed up, post-bombing kid, shot up and hiding in someones shrink-wrapped boat after being on the run for 4 days, and I figure he very easily could have messed up a suicide attempt. I don't know that we'll ever learn how a kid with a decent life, friends, and a bright future could end up the way he did, but I hope we find out. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 09:20 PM (#3506860) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Greg F. EASY, Bobad - you'd think McGrath was picking on Israel... |
|
21 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM (#3506863) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad Adding me to your stalking list Greg? I'm honoured. |
|
21 Apr 13 - 09:55 PM (#3506870) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad April 21 (Reuters) - The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, who was seriously wounded and unable to speak, is awake and responding in writing to questions from authorities, according to a Tweets by ABC and NBC news networks. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is in the intensive care unit of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, is responding sporadically, the ABC news network reported on its Twitter feed. NBC's Pete Williams is also reporting Tsarnaev is writing answers to questions from law enforcement. Tsarnaev is being treated for a gunshot in the mouth that exited the back of his neck, according Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, who was interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes." He also suffered a gunshot wound to the leg, Davis said. (Reporting By Brendan O'Brien; Editing by Stacey Joyce) |
|
21 Apr 13 - 10:04 PM (#3506872) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Rapparee Okay, that explains the throat wound. Wouldn't be the first time that sort of wound has happened and the wounded recovered. If he is responding in writing the spinal cord may even be intact. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 03:27 AM (#3506928) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Keith A of Hertford how a kid with a decent life, friends, and a bright future could end up the way he did, It is not at all unusual for such monsters to be intelligent, educated and outwardly decent people. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 08:04 AM (#3507001) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Greg F. Adding me to your stalking list Greg? I'm honoured. "Stalking list"? You're not honored - you're self-absorbed and paranoid. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 08:42 AM (#3507010) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: beardedbruce Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licenses By Jonathan Allen Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:46pm EDT (Reuters) - The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday. In the confrontation with police on the streets of a Boston suburb, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed with handguns, at least one rifle and several explosive devices, authorities say. But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed in the shootout with police, would have been required to apply for a gun license with the local police department where he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But there is no record of him having done so, according to Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello. Even if he had earlier received a gun license from somewhere outside Cambridge, that license would have to be registered with Cambridge police upon becoming a resident of the city, Riviello said. In Massachusetts, gun licenses are issued by municipal police departments. "There is no record of him having a license to carry," Riviello told Reuters. Tsarnaev's younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, who was captured alive on Friday after the manhunt, would have been too young to get a handgun license. Under state law, residents under 21 may only apply for a so-called firearms identification card, which allows the holder to own only rifles that hold 10 rounds or less and shotguns. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no record of a firearms ID card in Cambridge. The police department in Dartmouth, where Dzhokhar was a student, said they had no record of gun licenses or ID cards for either brother. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 09:03 AM (#3507018) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Rapparee I'm not surprised. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 06:46 PM (#3507325) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: dick greenhaus "Failing to Provide a Miranda Warning If the police fail to make you aware of your Miranda rights, nothing said in response to a custodial interrogation can be used against you. In addition, any evidence that is derived from that improper custodial interrogation is also inadmissible." |
|
22 Apr 13 - 07:06 PM (#3507335) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow I wouldn't imagine that in this case anything the young man said would be of any importance to the prosecution. Obviously a shot to the neck could have come from a botched suicide attempt. But there'd have been a lot of bullets flying around, and it'd be premature to assume that without more evidence that the trajectory of the bullet could have been consistent with that. ........ As for the gun licence business, it's surely irrelevant to the issue of gun law reform. After all, if it turned out they did have the guns legally, that could equally be argued as evidence that gun registration restrictions don't work. |
|
22 Apr 13 - 09:29 PM (#3507402) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: dick greenhaus Kevin- THe young man's statements concerning outside influences and possible co-conspirators would also be inadmissible. Under typical practise, failure to give the Miranda warning would get the whpole case thrown out of court. THere's no real point in not reading him his rights---he has those rights whether or not they're read to him. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:28 AM (#3507586) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Well, he's been read his rights and charged with "Conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction", among other offences. It seems that US Federal Authorities have their own definition of WMDs. If a home made bomb qualifies as a WMD, what about drones and aerial bombs such as are used by the US? Is it just a sneaky way to justify Geedubya's claim that Iraq had WMDs? Or does WMD only mean "Any weapon that is used against the US"? Just asking, since the rest of the world seems to think it relates to Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons which can destroy whole populations. Don T. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:34 AM (#3507590) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Don't get me wrong! I want to see the little shit get what's coming to him. I just wonder what kind of precedent the USA may be establishing, which might bite 'em in the arse the next time they decide to slap down some other state. Don T. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:48 AM (#3507597) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: gnu While evidence obtained may not be allowed in court, I assume it was sought for the purposes intended. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:57 AM (#3507601) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor "Is it just a sneaky way to justify Geedubya's claim that Iraq had WMDs?" My guess it is a sneaky was of saying that what W. said was nutso and doesn't matter anymore. Obviously killing 3 injuring 170 and destroying property is mass destruction. Obviously saying "our next message may be a mushroom over and an American city." is a tad hyperbolic. Just a tad. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 08:59 AM (#3507647) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: GUEST,SPB at work I can see that the prosecutors want to secure a death sentence - I won't get into my views on capital punishment - that is another issue for debate. But I too am concerned that by lazy use of language on the domestic front, it lowers the bar on what would constitute a WMD in terms of international affairs, ,and could create an easy justification for a future government to invade a country whose policies it doesn't approve of. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 12:25 PM (#3507763) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: GUEST,Eliza I do so hope they manage to get to the bottom of how and why he and his brother decided to do this. It's important for future security and would help in identifying other potentially dangerous young terrorists-in-the-making. The more info is gleaned from him, the easier it will be to spot the same type before (God forbid) any more atrocities are perpetrated. Somehow, somewhere, impressionable young people are being brainwashed into doing this. We must find out as much as possible. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 02:09 PM (#3507826) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Stilly River Sage "Weapons of Mass Destruction" seems to me to be overkill, so to speak, and if nothing else, will provide a great source of material for comedy writers. I have a pressure cooker in my kitchen, nails in my garage. . . I wouldn't consider purchasing something like black powder and assembling such a dangerous device, but my understanding of what WMD meant in the context of starting a war, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded Iraq because of a plethora of pressure cooker bombs. Nope. They just wouldn't. SRS |
|
23 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM (#3507919) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow Why assume that "the prosecuters want to secure a death sentence". They might or they might not, but it's not really their concern. Their role is to ensure that the court has evidence that would justify a guilty verdict. (And also of course to ensure that any evidence tending to the contrary would also be presented.) |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:23 PM (#3507962) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Isn't there a danger that the Supreme Court, on appeal, might quash a sentence on grounds of that description, where a conviction for murder would certainly be upheld. I'd hate to see the little bastard walk on a technicality. Don T. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 06:46 PM (#3507967) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter > Isn't there a danger that the Supreme Court, on appeal, might quash a sentence on grounds of that description Hard to imagine. The intended meaning of the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" is presumably defined in the statute. Besides, he can and undoubtedly will be charged with many state counts of murder and assault as well. If he somehow escapes the death penalty, he will never get out of prison. BTW, his alleged statement that they blew up spectators at a footrace "in order to defend Islam" shows if true, just how staggeringly stupid and crazy and barbaric they were. One of them apparently set his bomb down - quite consciously - right next to the eight-year-old who was killed. Later Dz. Tweeted, "Ain't no love in the heart of the city. Stay safe, people" and "I'm a carefree kind of guy." |
|
23 Apr 13 - 08:20 PM (#3507997) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Joe_F It seems he put a pistol in his mouth *and missed his brain*. I think that qualifies for the world's worst shot. |
|
23 Apr 13 - 10:12 PM (#3508037) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter Joe, after four days I haven't heard anyone who was on the scene confirm that he even had a gun with him in the boat, no less tried to shoot himself, or had a "gun battle" with police. Today a SWAT officer who helped make the arrest said they "thought he might have a gun." Apparently he didn't. The same officer said that the supposed "bullet wound" looked to him like a "deep cut," that he thought probably came from a piece of shrapnel the night before. |
|
24 Apr 13 - 06:35 AM (#3508119) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow There seems to be an awful lot of surmise and rumour presenting itself as established fact... |
|
24 Apr 13 - 08:00 AM (#3508143) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter CBS reported last night, apparently definitively, that Dz. had no gun in the boat. Remember how George Zimmerman supposedly used a "racial epithet" while following Trayvon Martin? Millions "heard" it on the tape. It turned out that the sounds were probably not even words and could have been made by inadvertently scraping the cell phone against his face. In both cases the embellishments made a more exciting story that was closer to movie-based expectations: Killer is a vicious racist!! Bomber yells, "Come and get me, coppers!!" The way people want the news to be. |
|
24 Apr 13 - 10:44 PM (#3508488) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Stilly River Sage Calling a pressure cooker a "weapon of mass destruction" instead of an IED (improvised explosive device) is nuts. The crime that they're wanting to prosecute is domestic terrorism and the resulting murders. Using "WMD" not only domesticates the perceived danger of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (which would in theory kill a lot more people, hence the "mass destruction" part of the name), it exaggerates the charge to a point that it alone could be dismissed as overkill. (I'm not a lawyer - I dismiss it as a practitioner of the English language.) They need to tone it down and be accurate. That's sufficient to get this prosecution going and successfully completed. SRS |
|
25 Apr 13 - 08:37 AM (#3508632) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter SRS, as a "practitioner of the English language," I agree with you completely. This is the first time I've heard "WMD" applied to anything short of atom bombs, toxic gases, and weaponized pathogens. It goes back to before the days of GWB. However, the statute in question does define precisely what *it* means by WMD: http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-24/news/38793219_1_boston-marathon-mass-destruction-weapon The point may have been that a very general term was required to include whatever might be conceivable. (Just guessing.) Anyway, a jury should be able to tell the difference between a pressure cooker and an A-bomb. |
|
25 Apr 13 - 12:56 PM (#3508746) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow What's wrong with 'murder' as the charge? What need for anything over and above tat? |
|
25 Apr 13 - 01:10 PM (#3508752) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor SRS according to Philly article Ricin in an envelope addressed to an individual is WMD? go figure? |
|
25 Apr 13 - 08:22 PM (#3508925) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Joe_F Aha, so it *was* too silly to be true. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 05:00 AM (#3509033) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Since the apprehension and him being in the hospital, I don't think we should believe one media report. GfS |
|
26 Apr 13 - 07:08 AM (#3509080) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Keith A of Hertford Out of hospital now. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 11:10 AM (#3509179) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: pdq How many people have heard that he was read Miranda by a judge who simply walked into the hospital room 19 hours after the public saftey exemption was invoked? That exemption lasts 48 hours. He immediatly "clammed up". Seems she makes regular visits to Muslim countries to tell people how to game the US legal system. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 11:50 AM (#3509204) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Are you sure???...or are you just repeating stuff you heard on the 'news'? GfS |
|
26 Apr 13 - 12:13 PM (#3509218) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor Its not rocket science pdq. He can cooperate with authorities and not have his words used in court if there is no warning. The warning "anything you say can and will be used against you " is essentially a command to shut up. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 12:56 PM (#3509236) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Bill D WMD. "weapon of moderate destruction" Makes no difference what it's made of or what you name it, making a BOMB to kill innocent people for terrorist purposes is quite enough to charge someone with. If they had sneaked up to the roof and thrown heavy objects down on the crowd, it would be just as heinous...only the type of injuries would be different. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 01:31 PM (#3509255) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter Yeah, but that would be murder, a state charge, and it wouldn't matter what weapon they used. We're talking about terrorism, which is defined to be a federal crime. The JFK assassination led to jurisdictional conflicts because in 1963 a presidential assassination was just another murder to be prosecuted by the state it was committed in. The FBI and the Secret Service were kept out of the loop, and the prosecution was to be handled by Texas authorities only. Then the law was changed. The charge of terrorism is similar in principle, I imagine. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 02:14 PM (#3509283) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow But it doesn't matter what he says so far as the murder trial is concerned. In fact any admissions would only get in the way. The other evidence is what is significant. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 02:18 PM (#3509285) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Jack the Sailor MCGrath is right They have him dead to rights. What he says won't matter. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 02:30 PM (#3509288) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Lighter It could matter, though not to his own case, if he has terrorist contacts unknown to the Feds. But so far he seems not to. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 02:41 PM (#3509292) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow Going on about WMDs on the other hand could mess things up, since a pressure cooker improvised bomb is not what many people (indeed, anybody?) would be likely to class as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A jury could quite justifiably refuse to accept the redefinition of the term. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 02:45 PM (#3509293) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: beardedbruce "Weapons of mass destruction refers to any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious physical harm through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors,a weapon involving a disease organism or biological agent ,or a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life. The following is an example of a state laws dealing with weapons of mass destruction: Unlawful possession or use of a hoax weapon of mass destruction. (A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall manufacture, possess, sell, deliver, display, use, threaten to use, attempt to use, conspire to use, or make readily accessible to others a hoax weapon of mass destruction with the intent to deceive or otherwise mislead one or more persons into believing that the hoax weapon of mass destruction will cause terror, bodily harm, or property damage." http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/weapons-of-mass-destruction/ I would not consider the bombs they made to be WMD, just destructive devices. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 03:39 PM (#3509327) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Don Firth I've always understood Weapons of Mass Destruction to be things like nuclear weapons, toxic gasses, and biological weapons, devices and substances intended to kill indiscriminantly and in massive numbers. Bombs made in pressure cookers, such as the ones used in Boston would definitely fit the "Improvised Explosive Device" catagory, intended to kill or injure as many people as possible, but incapable of killing hundreds of thousands like a nuclear weapon, nerve gas, which can drift on the prevailing winds, or a virus that can infect millions. An Improvised Explosive Device is obviously a vicious enough weapon without having to resort to some overenthusiastic newsman's hyperbola. Don Firth |
|
26 Apr 13 - 04:36 PM (#3509348) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad From Lighters earlier link: According to a federal statute, " 18 USC 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction," the term refers to four things. "(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses." "(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life." |
|
26 Apr 13 - 05:19 PM (#3509363) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: McGrath of Harlow So basically, virtually any weapon other than a sword or spear... (After all, the explosives that propel bullets are pretty toxic chemicals.) I just don't get the point of bringing the term into play - it's inviting needless trouble. If it's a matter of wishing to define it as terrorism, that's not a matter of the weapon used, it's about the motivation. A political assassination using a knife, for example. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 05:38 PM (#3509372) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: bobad From the same link: The section goes on to exclude devices not intended to be used as weapons, as well as rifles used for "sporting, recreational or cultural purposes." With a broad definition like that, prosecutors seem to be on solid legal ground in describing those shrapnel-loaded Boston bombs as "weapons of mass destruction." |
|
26 Apr 13 - 06:46 PM (#3509386) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Greg F. Boston bombs as "weapons of mass destruction." Not. Hyperbole R Us |
|
27 Apr 13 - 12:11 PM (#3509639) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: dick greenhaus And remembering a school in Connecticut, is an assault rifle a WMD? |
|
28 Apr 13 - 12:42 AM (#3509810) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don Firth: "I've always understood Weapons of Mass Destruction to be things like nuclear weapons, toxic gasses, and biological weapons, devices and substances intended to kill indiscriminately and in massive numbers." In other words, navy bean soup! GfS |
|
28 Apr 13 - 07:17 PM (#3510057) Subject: RE: BS: Boston bomb suspect in custody /hospital From: Stilly River Sage The suspect isn't out of the hospital, he was moved to a different hospital. The Federal prison system has several hospital facilities for those who are incarcerated who need the medical care. I live about five miles from one of those hospitals in Fort Worth, TX. We've had some high-profile folks here over the years. SRS |